But they also support killing all pit bulls that enter a shelter and not allowing them to be adopted out. They used donations to go to court trying to get the Vick dogs killed. I don't know how any AR activist can get behind that.

Well, I agree with you that I wouldn't support not giving a dog the chance to be adopted, but if this is correct then 1/3 of the shelters are not adopting them out anyway (I assume they perform euthanasia)? It's really a problem how people treat these animals.

Quote:

Pit bulls are the most exploited, abused, and

neglected dogs of all. They are seemingly the most

abundant breed in animal shelters as well as the

most difficult to place safely because of theft,

abuse, and the possibility of attacks on small

animals, other dogs, and human beings. In New

York City, pit bulls make up 40 percent of the

12,000 dogs who are housed by the city’s shelter

system, which handles between three and five

cruelty cases involving pit bulls every week. As far

back as 2000, an ASPCA query to shelters about

their experiences with pit bulls revealed that 35

percent of responding shelters took in at least one

pit bull a day, and in one out of four shelters, pit

bulls and pit mixes made up more than 20 percent

of the shelter dog population. One-third of the

shelters did not adopt pit bulls out to the public,

partly out of concern for the dogs’ safety

Re. feral cats, I have spent considerable time and resources doing TNR, and with the resources I have I believe in it and it would be very hard for me to make another choice. But I know it's not for everyone, in every area and situation, and I have personally seen complete disasters in which I wish the cats had just been put down. I also know of situations in which the rescuer chose euthanasia instead of TNR and it was the most humane situation (it's disturbing but if you want to know more pm me). So I understand their stance on that. I don't hate them for it or think they don't advocate for animals, even though my stance and practice is different.

I don't see evidence that Newkirk is crazy. I'm sure I don't agree with any person or group on absolutely everything.

"If you want to know where you would have stood on slavery before the civil war, don't look at where you stand on slavery today, look at where you stand on animal rights." - Paul Watson.

But they also support killing all pit bulls that enter a shelter and not allowing them to be adopted out. They used donations to go to court trying to get the Vick dogs killed. I don't know how any AR activist can get behind that.

Do you have support for those claims?

The pdf Irizary linked to seemed to imply that they didn't support all pit bulls entering a shelter. The issue seems to be specifically with fighting dogs (including pit bulls).

I don't really follow PETA though and don't know all their policies or what they've used donations for.

I think that's true about the Vick dogs (hate to even call them that), but it's hard to find an article that doesn't also contain some misrepresentation or hyperbole.

I do not agree with their rationale in this case and I wish they had stayed out of it, but I generally understand their perspective. But like I said, just because I don't agree with them doesn't mean I hate them or think they don't advocate for animals. I have seen advocates with differing opinions be right in some cases, wrong in others.

"If you want to know where you would have stood on slavery before the civil war, don't look at where you stand on slavery today, look at where you stand on animal rights." - Paul Watson.

No kill shelters are a nice idea that do work in some areas, however they are not plausible everywhere. The shelters near me kill dogs and cats almost everyday bc of over crowding. There is one no kill shelter a couple cities over that actually leads to the surrounding shelters getting more dogs and cats bc the no kill shelter reaches capacity regularly. They turn away dogs and cats they don't have room for or don't think can be adopted.
Some dogs are abused and neglected to the point of no return. An incident happened with a no kill shelter adopting out some dogs ( I'm not saying the breed bc it doesn't matter) that had previously been used for fighting, the new owners were severely attacked. The no kill shelters screening and rehab process were not effective in this case.

I believe 99% of dogs with behavior issues can be rehabilitated but it takes knowing what you are doing. Much, much easier than changing a disturbed human and we certainly don't euthanize them. The problem in many shelters is the workers don't know anything about how to read a dog. So some dogs get adopted out into the wrong kind of circumstances. And breed doesn't matter. I see it happen with all breeds.

I've also been around my share of dogs that have fought. Again the vast majority have no ill will towards humans. Aggression towards other dogs DOES NOT mean a dog will be aggressive towards humans. Far from it. There is a reason pit bulls are the choice of dog fighters. They are very strong, yes, but other breeds are stronger. However, dog fighters want a dog in the ring that won't turn on the humans when he's all pumped up on adrenaline during a fight. Not many dogs will fight another dog to the death and then turn around and be completely docile with the humans in the ring. Pit bulls will. They are one breed specifically bred NOT to be human aggressive. Look at Lucas, Vick's prize champion. He couldn't be adopted out by judge's order. I think the judge was afraid someone would try to steal him because of who he belonged to and the fact that he was good fighter. He turned out to be the most affectionate towards humans of all that piece of crap's dogs.

Did they adopt out these dogs to the same home? If so that was mistake #1 right there.

I think that's true about the Vick dogs (hate to even call them that), but it's hard to find an article that doesn't also contain some misrepresentation or hyperbole.

I do not agree with their rationale in this case and I wish they had stayed out of it, but I generally understand their perspective. But like I said, just because I don't agree with them doesn't mean I hate them or think they don't advocate for animals. I have seen advocates with differing opinions be right in some cases, wrong in others.

Actually I think many PeTA workers are probably great and sincere about what they do. It's a huge organization and I'm not judging them all. They just need to lose their bat**** crazy leader and her cult.

Peta isn't the best organization in the world when it comes to using the millions that come in, I truly do think some of that could be used in a better way. I'm sure some of the animals that they take in are injured beyond help and euthanasia is the only choice, but I have trouble believing that's the case for every single one of the animals that they murder annually.

Actually I think many PeTA workers are probably great and sincere about what they do. It's a huge organization and I'm not judging them all. They just need to lose their bat**** crazy leader and her cult.

I'm sure some of the animals that they take in are injured beyond help and euthanasia is the only choice, but I have trouble believing that's the case for every single one of the animals that they murder annually.

I originally made this assumption too, but after looking into it, there is no evidence that they euthanize adoptable animals. They refer adoptable animals to an open shelter (apparently the Virginia Beach SPCA), and the office of the state veterinarian has never received a complaint from anyone who has used PETA's services (most animals brought there are owner-surrendered) that PETA has misrepresented their services. Using the word "murder" in this case - without evidence that it's anything other than humane euthanasia - doesn't help any argument.

"If you want to know where you would have stood on slavery before the civil war, don't look at where you stand on slavery today, look at where you stand on animal rights." - Paul Watson.

I originally made this assumption too, but after looking into it, there is no evidence that they euthanize adoptable animals. They refer adoptable animals to an open shelter (apparently the Virginia Beach SPCA), and the office of the state veterinarian has never received a complaint from anyone who has used PETA's services (most animals brought there are owner-surrendered) that PETA has misrepresented their services. Using the word "murder" in this case - without evidence that it's anything other than humane euthanasia - doesn't help any argument.

That's a fair point, I'll choose my words more carefully. But peta needs to be aware how things like this will be taken by the public (much less members like you, me and everyone here). If they're going to euthanize 70-90% of animals or whatever the number actually is, than it's critical for their process to be transparent. The fact is that we don't know why criteria they select. It's entirely possible that they only accept and euthanize pets that are too badly damaged to ever be adopted out. But we don't know that for a fact. Even their own website is littered with words like "most" or "the majority of" or phrases like "but at PETA, we will never turn our backs on neglected, unloved, and homeless animals—even if the best we can offer them is a painless release from a world that doesn't have enough heart or homes with room for them" The implication there is that homelessness is enough of a reason to euthanize.

Fact is, I don't know for sure and you were right to call me out, but I don't know if anyone outside of their clinic can be certain what's going on and that is without a doubt a problem.

That's a fair point, I'll choose my words more carefully. But peta needs to be aware how things like this will be taken by the public (much less members like you, me and everyone here). If they're going to euthanize 70-90% of animals or whatever the number actually is, than it's critical for their process to be transparent. The fact is that we don't know why criteria they select. It's entirely possible that they only accept and euthanize pets that are too badly damaged to ever be adopted out. But we don't know that for a fact. Even their own website is littered with words like "most" or "the majority of" or phrases like "but at PETA, we will never turn our backs on neglected, unloved, and homeless animals—even if the best we can offer them is a painless release from a world that doesn't have enough heart or homes with room for them" The implication there is that homelessness is enough of a reason to euthanize.

Fact is, I don't know for sure and you were right to call me out, but I don't know if anyone outside of their clinic can be certain what's going on and that is without a doubt a problem.

If it were possible I wish they would provide a detailed record of every animal who is euthanized and make it public, but maybe they figure that people would still say, "With all their money, that dog should have been cured of that cancer" (that happens in 95% of cases to be terminal) or whatever, so they don't think that it would be useful. I don't know. But I haven't seen actual evidence that they kill adoptable animals - and the explanation for why the euthanasia rate is high, and the fact that there are no complaints from owners of surrendered animals, makes the evidence go in their direction.

They aren't an open shelter where animals are relinquished to be put up for adoption. That right there is the explanation. They're not comparable to that, although I understand they take a very few that can be immediately fostered or adopted (the rest would be referred to an open shelter like the SPCA). They are meant specifically to meet the medical/euthanasia needs of the animals brought in. By Virginia law they have to keep records on surrendered animals and their owners for at least 2 years, and within that time if someone has a complaint they can ask for an investigation. There have been no complaints. The adoptable animals that are referred out to the SPCA are not counted as part of their statistics, because they didn't go through an intake at PETA.

I personally wish that PETA would get out of the euthanasia business, even when someone brings an animal to them who is in pain and dying with nowhere else to go. It seems to be just too damaging to them. But I'm not there actually seeing those animals, and because they are, I think they have too much integrity and care for that. If actual information comes out that shows they are euthanizing adoptable animals because they're too lazy, scared, or spent to do anything else, then I will take it seriously. I keep trying to understand and research this controversy too.

Thigh I don't agree or support PETA in any way, I wish they would make their stance more clear and be honest about it. If they so euthanise dogs and cats, at least come out ad explain precisely why they do that. By being so vague about their practices, people get the impression that they say one thing and do another.

I have to say, even though they're often characterized by kill-elsewhere advocates and animal users alike for "hiding something", if PeTA is hiding things, they're doing a really bad job of it. What with posting on their own sites and writing op-eds and such ...

Dave in MPLS / DISCLAIMER: I am not an actual rooster.
"It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness"
National Suicide Prevention Lifeline 18002738255

I cAn never advocate euthanasia of an cat or dog; in the cats case if it really is unsociable, you can always spay/nueter and release; generally dogs can be rehabilitated as well. PETA is making excuses, 20 dogs in a year? Give me a break, 2000 animals and they are all better off dead? What a bunch of hypocrites!

So if a dog is in great pain because cancer has eaten its face away then you should just neuter it and release it to die in agony?
Rehomeable animals given straight into the system and NOT included in the figures. These are sick and injured animals.

I have to say, even though they're often characterized by kill-elsewhere advocates and animal users alike for "hiding something", if PeTA is hiding things, they're doing a really bad job of it. What with posting on their own sites and writing op-eds and such ...

Like I've said, they want pit bulls dead. How nice of them to grandfather in the ones currently in homes. But if bat**** crazy Ingrid had her way, the 3 sweet pit bulls adopted over the weekend from the shelter where I volunteer would instead have been killed. And they've had this stance for a while now. The one my sister adopted in 2007 would have been better off dead as well, according to PeTA.

I can't find solid data but it looks like PETA gets something around $30million per year in donations. Where is all this money going? I can't imagine it would take much more than 2-3 million a year to run a fully funded shelter for an influx of 2000 animals per year (assuming an average life expectancy of 10 years).